NVIDIA Responds to GTX 970 3.5GB Memory Issue

[TheBoneyKing]

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue

 

 

from article:

 

"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."

 

I guess 3rd party programs can't measure usage of the 0.5 GB segment. Still seems like BS though

 

Edit: Original article by Ryan to include his commentary:

 

"So it would appear that the severing of a single SM to make the GTX 970 different than the GTX 980 was the root cause of the issue. I'm not sure if this something that we have seen before with NVIDIA GPUs that are cut down in the same way, but I have asked for clarification from NVIDIA on that. 

Another theory presented itself as well: is this possibly the reason we do not have a GTX 960 Ti yet? If the patterns were followed from previous generations a GTX 960 Ti would be a GM204 GPU with fewer cores enabled and additional SMs disconnected to enable a lower price point. If this memory issue were to be even more substantial, creating larger differentiated "pools" of memory, then it could be an issue for performance or driver development. To be clear, we are just guessing on this one and that could be something that would not occur at all. Again, I've asked NVIDIA for some technical clarification.

Requests for information aside, we may never know for sure if this is a bug with the GM204 ASIC or predetermined characteristic of design. 

The questions remains: does NVIDIA's response appease GTX 970 owners?"

 

Edit: per @Snickerzz "Gigabyte's newest bios seem to have fixed the issue or at least help it according to this guy~ https://forums.gefor...432322/#4432322"

 

This BIOS doesn't seem to be intended for the G1 card, though I may be wrong. However, I really don't think Gigabyte 970 owners should go flashing their BIOS any time soon

 

Edit (Personal opinion): After some thinking, I've come to a conclusion: I f**king love my EVGA 970. As others mentioned, the 970 CAN utilize all 4 GB of VRAM, it's just terribly slow at utilizing the last 0.5 GB. This doesn't change the fact that  my 970 can max out all my games at >60 FPS at 1080p. And considering the high price of 21:9 1440p and 4K, I don't see a need for more VRAM usage anyways as I won't be upgrading my display anytime soon. I don't regret selling my hot and loud r9 290 and buying my cool and quiet 970 for a second. I'm off to play some more E:D now

 

Edit: PCPer posted video on the issue and article with more detail:

 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970

[Sauron]

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue

 

please add some personal comment, snippets from the article and possibly pics. Slapping a link on the forum is not enough for the news section.

[Lays]

Seems fishy still IMO.

[Misanthrope]

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Responds-GTX-970-35GB-Memory-Issue

 

 

from article:

 

"The GeForce GTX 970 is equipped with 4GB of dedicated graphics memory.  However the 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section.  The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section.  When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands.  When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments."

 

Translation: We fucking lied about the 4gb spec. 

[FunkyFeatures]

Translation: We fucking lied about the 4gb spec. 

Was my immediate thought after reading the quote from OP..

[DeViLzzz]

In the article there is no link to the direct quote so who cares at this point.  How do we know this statement is official?  Still we do know that the cards are not using all 4 GB of memory the way it should be used and thus I wouldn't buy this card.

[Darkman]

Seems fishy still IMO.

Yep... Look at Nvidia put "4GB GDDR5" on the 970 when they included the .5GB that HAS to be dedicated to the system... Yeah, if AMD said that on their 290 and 290x, they'd really have 4.5GB... Also, I now know why I stutter a lot on Assetto Corsa....

Note: I still call BS on this.

[Suika]

I honestly wouldn't care if NVIDIA hadn't originally lied or abused the specs to sell it better. 3.5GB seems like more than enough, but saying it has 4GB, but only 3.5GB, is a douche bag move.

[werto165]

Yep... Look at Nvidia put "4GB GDDR5" on the 970 when they included the .5GB that HAS to be dedicated to the system... Yeah, if AMD said that on their 290 and 290x, they'd really have 4.5GB... Also, I now know why I stutter a lot on Assetto Corsa....

Does it seriously stutter? I have a 2GB card and play mostly max settings(No AA) to get 50-60FPS. Or are you using a higher res/more AA? 

[Lays]

Yep... Look at Nvidia put "4GB GDDR5" on the 970 when they included the .5GB that HAS to be dedicated to the system... Yeah, if AMD said that on their 290 and 290x, they'd really have 4.5GB... Also, I now know why I stutter a lot on Assetto Corsa....

Note: I still call BS on this.

 

 

I noticed when I get to around 3.5gb of usage in Crysis 3 DSR'd at 4k, if I go above 3.5 the performance really seems to tank.

 

Also tons of programs have told me I only have 3500mb of vram, seems fishy how nvidia is wording this stuff to get away with it.

[Darkman]

Does it seriously stutter? I have a 2GB card and play mostly max settings(No AA) to get 50-60FPS. Or are you using a higher res/more AA? 

Yeah... When I have afterburner open monitoring, I get a solid 80-85FPS maxed out, but once I see Afterburner read more than 3.5GB of VRAM in use, it then stutters... And that is why I cannot max the game.

 

I noticed when I get to around 3.5gb of usage in Crysis 3 DSR'd at 4k, if I go above 3.5 the performance really seems to tank.

 

Also tons of programs have told me I only have 3500mb of vram, seems fishy how nvidia is wording this stuff to get away with it.

Yeah... Weird thing is, my GPU-Z is the only program that reads 4GB. I now wish I went with a 290x... Also, the AMD route wouldn't make me need to buy a new motherboard for SLI since I'm on H97...

[TheBoneyKing]

In the article there is no link to the direct quote so who cares at this point.  How do we know this is official?

Yeah, would definitely like a source for quote as well. But never known PCPer to be unreliable at least

[hak4fun]

Sounds fishy to me....

[Icecube26]

so the 970 is 3 gb+ card?... lol?... wtf?

[Northstorm]

Repost? (Original thread http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/296580-gtx-970-apparently-cant-use-4-gigs-of-vram/)

This was even covered in the WAN show...

 

[KeltonDSMer]

In the article there is no link to the direct quote so who cares at this point.  How do we know this is official?

 

PCPER has a pretty deep relationship with NV (also AMD and Intel for that matter); Ryan Shrout would not have released this if NV was going to turn around and claim "we never said that".

 

Also, the small change in average FPS shown in the internal testing is misleading. The frame time variations appear to be what are suffering as the mem bandwidth slows (according to 970 owners/testers on other forums), we need to see those FCAT charts to determine what is really happening as the frame buffer fills IMO.

[totjup5]

When the original post about the 970s came out I ran some tests in various games at 1440p. In both shadow of mordor and Battlefield 4 I was able to fill the vram to about 3.8-3.9 gb with no noticeable performance impact past the 3.5gb mark. Maybe I'm just lucky, but my suspicion is that people blew this issue way out of proportion when it was never really a problem to begin with.

[TheBoneyKing]

Repost? (Original thread http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/296580-gtx-970-apparently-cant-use-4-gigs-of-vram/)

This was even covered in the WAN show...

 

Nope. In what way is, "We are still looking into this and will have an update as soon as possible," the same as what I posted? This reply was given about an hour ago as well

[arnavvr]

Is the 970 a bad buy for 4k, when pairing them in SLI? Should we go CF MSI Lightning 290X's?

[monstercameron]

PCPER has a pretty deep relationship with NV (also AMD and Intel for that matter); Ryan Shrout would not have released this if NV was going to turn around and claim "we never said that".

 

Also, the small change in average FPS shown in the internal testing is misleading. The frame time variations appear to be what are suffering as the mem bandwidth slows (according to 970 owners/testers on other forums), we need to see those FCAT charts to determine what is really happening as the frame buffer fills IMO.

the minute nvidia started losing frametimes, reviewers stopped using it.

[DeViLzzz]

Is the 970 a bad buy for 4k, when pairing them in SLI? Should we go CF MSI Lightning 290X's?

Seriously you are considering a GTX 970 still?  The only way I would do that is if Nvidia comes out with a 4 GB GTX 970 as people expect it to work.  I love Nvidia and PhysX and all that usually but no way I buy this current version of the card.

[KeltonDSMer]

the minute nvidia started losing frametimes, reviewers stopped using it.

 

Well, Ryan (PCPER) was one of the first reviewers (HardOCP too) to show the importance of frame times back in the 7000 series xfire "microstutter" days. I feel confident they will look into this on their own and will provide the masses with some solid info.

 

BTW your comment made me laugh and feel sad at the same time (it pretty much is the case)

[arnavvr]

Seriously you are considering a GTX 970 still?  The only way I would do that is if Nvidia comes out with a 4 GB GTX 970 as people expect it to work.  I love Nvidia and PhysX and all that usually but no way I buy this current version of the card.

 

That's what I meant, at least Nvidia should have been upfront with saying that it has 3.5 GB of VRAM, instead of saying it has 4. So I said we should go CF MSI Lightning 290X's 

[SteveGrabowski]

I hope this is bullshit. I bought a 970 specifically because it claims 4GB VRAM. If it's really 3.5GB I'll be mad as hell, because I 100% would have bought a 290 or 290x instead.

[qwertywarrior]

this  still doenst explain the big hit in performance after using 3.5GB of vram or when u go slightly over 3GB of vram